Reasonable Transit Pitches

[F-Line to Dudley]

OOPS sorry! Track four will connect to track 2

The crossovers at PLAINS Interlocking already connect 4 with 2. How is this doing anything whatsoever different? You're crossing over multiple tracks on a very congested railroad. Crossing over is what creates the objectionable conflicts.

There's no one-neat-trick tweak that's going to bail out all the congestion problems here.

 

[BostonBoy]

My apologies Mr F. New to all of this. The track 4 to which I refer is not the track marked as such on your original diagram. I am talking about the original alignment entering the SW Corridor on the main Line from the west. It would be 4 and 2 eastbound; 1 and 3 westbound. Instead of 3 tracks entering the SW Corridor at Forest Hills,from the west, there would be the original 4 tracks. The souternmost inbound track, number 4 track. would cut into track 2 at Forest or Plains. Track 1 would be on the south side of the platform at Forest Hills and mainline track 3 would be on the north side of the platform at Forest Hills. The Needham Branch would enter the Corridor on one track only; Mainline track 3. Plains would be configured to allow eastbound trains from the Needham Branch to crossover to track 2, which is how the interlocking is now configured. Although this configuration may restrict any major increase of frequencies off of the Needham Branch, It would increase capacity on the Corridor, allow for at Clarendon Hills, and allow for SouthCoast Rail to run through Easton and Canton ,to the Corridor. I believe there is sufficient room to to re configure the interlocking at Forest and Plains. There is real estate between the Corridor and the Orange Line ,east of the station, which was planned a a right of way between the two lines; where a crossover could be installed to interchange equipment from Amtrak to the Orange Line. ( We actually did this at Columbia Station between the Red Line and The Old Colony line in the 70's. We interchanged Rhor test cars there). Once again; new to this so I apologize if my explanation is hard to visualize.

 

[BostonBoy]

BTW, a little bird has told me that the new Acela trains have been authorized to negotiate curves up to 150 MPH. The old trains were restricted to 130. This could mean that top speeds for tangent track for the new trains could be even higher between Mansfield and Forest Hills, and possibly into the SW Corridor itself. Increased capacity on the trunkline may be more important than ever.

 

[Brattle Loop]

My apologies Mr F. New to all of this. The track 4 to which I refer is not the track marked as such on your original diagram. I am talking about the original alignment entering the SW Corridor on the main Line from the west. It would be 4 and 2 eastbound; 1 and 3 westbound. Instead of 3 tracks entering the SW Corridor at Forest Hills,from the west, there would be the original 4 tracks. The souternmost inbound track, number 4 track. would cut into track 2 at Forest or Plains. Track 1 would be on the south side of the platform at Forest Hills and mainline track 3 would be on the north side of the platform at Forest Hills. The Needham Branch would enter the Corridor on one track only; Mainline track 3. Plains would be configured to allow eastbound trains from the Needham Branch to crossover to track 2, which is how the interlocking is now configured. Although this configuration may restrict any major increase of frequencies off of the Needham Branch, It would increase capacity on the Corridor, allow for at Clarendon Hills, and allow for SouthCoast Rail to run through Easton and Canton ,to the Corridor. I believe there is sufficient room to to re configure the interlocking at Forest and Plains. There is real estate between the Corridor and the Orange Line ,east of the station, which was planned a a right of way between the two lines; where a crossover could be installed to interchange equipment from Amtrak to the Orange Line. ( We actually did this at Columbia Station between the Red Line and The Old Colony line in the 70's. We interchanged Rhor test cars there). Once again; new to this so I apologize if my explanation is hard to visualize.

I'm trying to visualize this and modified the diagram F-Line posted. I tried to make sense of what you're suggesting but I'm confused because either I'm not getting something or it's internally contradictory. I've attached what I think what you're proposing looks like, if there are corrections please let me know.

I feel like I have to be missing or misunderstanding something, because this configuration would be practically devoid of benefit if not counterproductive. Perennially squeezing all of the Needham trains onto this Track 3 (northernmost platform track at FH) is just a more brittle version of how the line runs now. It gains the corridor very little because all the NEC would get is the Track 1 (southern platform track) berth/passer that Needham already preferentially avoids (so not much to be gained there) and Track 3 whenever Needham isn't using it, which would be less often than now because Needham would no longer have anywhere to go. Not to mention that any Needham trains running on anything but Track 1 prior to reaching PLAINS would have to foul Track 1 to cross over to the north platform on Track 3. So, yeah, still confused.

 

[Brattle Loop]

BTW, a little bird has told me that the new Acela trains have been authorized to negotiate curves up to 150 MPH. The old trains were restricted to 130. This could mean that top speeds for tangent track for the new trains could be even higher between Mansfield and Forest Hills, and possibly into the SW Corridor itself. Increased capacity on the trunkline may be more important than ever.

The new Acelas are rated for 165 MPH maximum in service, a gain of 15 MPH over the top service speed of the A1s. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the A1s have ever run at 150 inside of Route 128 (at least in service). I'd imagine that has more to do with the level of congestion and having to deal with the slowpoke Commuter Rails (there's nothing quite like finishing a ride on a high speed train by losing fifteen minutes to a CR train making all stops) than anything to do with the track conditions or geometry, so I don't know that there's going to be a ton of vehicle-induced speed gains to be had there. (NEC work helping to move the CR trains out of the way, on the other hand...)

 

[BostonBoy]

I'm trying to visualize this and modified the diagram F-Line posted. I tried to make sense of what you're suggesting but I'm confused because either I'm not getting something or it's internally contradictory. I've attached what I think what you're proposing looks like, if there are corrections please let me know.

View attachment 15495
I feel like I have to be missing or misunderstanding something, because this configuration would be practically devoid of benefit if not counterproductive. Perennially squeezing all of the Needham trains onto this Track 3 (northernmost platform track at FH) is just a more brittle version of how the line runs now. It gains the corridor very little because all the NEC would get is the Track 1 (southern platform track) berth/passer that Needham already preferentially avoids (so not much to be gained there) and Track 3 whenever Needham isn't using it, which would be less often than now because Needham would no longer have anywhere to go. Not to mention that any Needham trains running on anything but Track 1 prior to reaching PLAINS would have to foul Track 1 to cross over to the north platform on Track 3. So, yeah, still confused.

I wish I could draw it what I'm trying to explain.

 

[BostonBoy]

I wish I could draw it what I'm trying to explain.

simplistic and incomplete , but what I'm basically trying to convey

 

[BostonBoy]

This configuration ,with the extra track 4 between Forest Hills and Readville, Rte 128 ,or Canton Jct. Would increase capacity, and expand service with a new station at Clarendon Hills, without radically disrupting service to the Needham Branch .

 

[Brattle Loop]

simplistic and incomplete , but what I'm basically trying to convey

Translated as best I could into the diagram form, not sure if I've got it right:

(For the sake of not driving myself insane it's a.) not to scale and b.) does not depict the 'dogleg' where tracks 2, 1, and 3 shift south to the east of PLAINS.

 

[Brattle Loop]

This configuration ,with the extra track 4 between Forest Hills and Readville, Rte 128 ,or Canton Jct. Would increase capacity, and expand service with a new station at Clarendon Hills, without radically disrupting service to the Needham Branch .

I completely fail to see how this configuration would be an improvement. My first thought is that it gains you literally less than nothing. As far as I know there is nothing stopping them building an additional platform serving the southernmost track (diagram Track 4), that's essentially what they did at Ruggles. Your configuration force-merges Track 4 (the "third platform" track, currently a run-through track) with Track 2 (a run-through track) where both right now and if you just added the platform without reconfiguration, Track 2 would not have a forced merge with anything, and any trains running on through that didn't need to stop at FH could just blast through on either Track 4 or Track 2 without touching any of the other tracks whatsoever. In turn that would seem to make the interface between Track 1 and Track 2 at PLAINS that much more tricky to manage, because of the forced merge of T4 and T2 screwing with capacity.

Forcing Needham off of Track 1 to perma-lock it onto Track 3 makes everything worse. Track 3 has now become worthless to the NEC. Anytime a Needham train needs to service FH - and all of them stop there - Track 3 is blocked by a train which must stop at that platform. If a Needham Line train is exiting the branch and meets an outbound, it will have to wait on the branch for the outbound to clear...then it'll get its turn to hog Track 3. The critical problem here is that whenever a Needham train needs to stop at FH, nothing else whatsoever can use Track 3. Literally right now they can use the southern platform track (Track 1 in the diagram) for Needhams if they need to, so that would go away.

Compared to today (all track numbers are from the diagram):
Track 4 would go from being a run-through track to being an (optional?) platform track at the new Ruggles-style southern side platform, with a forced merge with Track 2 at PLAINS.
Track 2 would go from being a run-through track to having a mandatory merge with Track 4 at PLAINS.
Track 1 would go from being the southern platform track with mandatory merge with Track 3 to being the southern platform track with no mandatory merges.
Track 3 would go from branching off Track 1 as the Needham-only northern platform track to being the northern platform track with no mandatory merges, serving all Needham trains plus the NEC.

That'd mean going from two complete express tracks to one compromised express track (in the sense of have fun dealing with the mandatory Track 4->Track 2 merge) or, if you wanted to now, one complete express track and one optional platform track that doesn't have to merge with anything else. Track 1 would gain what few Needhams would be kicked off it, but make that platform less attractive because stopping on it gums up yet another mainline track. (Yes, technically that is also true now...but there are two express tracks that don't merge with each other.)

I utterly fail to understand how this wouldn't make the crossover games actively worse. If so, it'd screw over Needham and the NEC! (And here I thought we'd had the last of the insane troll logic when Pollack left.)

EDIT: Just so it's clear, my assumption throughout has been that the NEC tracks are bidirectional. Can someone who knows confirm or refute that for me please?

 

[Tallguy]

I'm trying to visualize this and modified the diagram F-Line posted. I tried to make sense of what you're suggesting but I'm confused because either I'm not getting something or it's internally contradictory. I've attached what I think what you're proposing looks like, if there are corrections please let me know.

View attachment 15495
I feel like I have to be missing or misunderstanding something, because this configuration would be practically devoid of benefit if not counterproductive. Perennially squeezing all of the Needham trains onto this Track 3 (northernmost platform track at FH) is just a more brittle version of how the line runs now. It gains the corridor very little because all the NEC would get is the Track 1 (southern platform track) berth/passer that Needham already preferentially avoids (so not much to be gained there) and Track 3 whenever Needham isn't using it, which would be less often than now because Needham would no longer have anywhere to go. Not to mention that any Needham trains running on anything but Track 1 prior to reaching PLAINS would have to foul Track 1 to cross over to the north platform on Track 3. So, yeah, still confused.

Or we could OLX the Needham Line?

 

[BostonBoy]

I completely fail to see how this configuration would be an improvement. My first thought is that it gains you literally less than nothing. As far as I know there is nothing stopping them building an additional platform serving the southernmost track (diagram Track 4), that's essentially what they did at Ruggles. Your configuration force-merges Track 4 (the "third platform" track, currently a run-through track) with Track 2 (a run-through track) where both right now and if you just added the platform without reconfiguration, Track 2 would not have a forced merge with anything, and any trains running on through that didn't need to stop at FH could just blast through on either Track 4 or Track 2 without touching any of the other tracks whatsoever. In turn that would seem to make the interface between Track 1 and Track 2 at PLAINS that much more tricky to manage, because of the forced merge of T4 and T2 screwing with capacity.

Forcing Needham off of Track 1 to perma-lock it onto Track 3 makes everything worse. Track 3 has now become worthless to the NEC. Anytime a Needham train needs to service FH - and all of them stop there - Track 3 is blocked by a train which must stop at that platform. If a Needham Line train is exiting the branch and meets an outbound, it will have to wait on the branch for the outbound to clear...then it'll get its turn to hog Track 3. The critical problem here is that whenever a Needham train needs to stop at FH, nothing else whatsoever can use Track 3. Literally right now they can use the southern platform track (Track 1 in the diagram) for Needhams if they need to, so that would go away.

Compared to today (all track numbers are from the diagram):
Track 4 would go from being a run-through track to being an (optional?) platform track at the new Ruggles-style southern side platform, with a forced merge with Track 2 at PLAINS.
Track 2 would go from being a run-through track to having a mandatory merge with Track 4 at PLAINS.
Track 1 would go from being the southern platform track with mandatory merge with Track 3 to being the southern platform track with no mandatory merges.
Track 3 would go from branching off Track 1 as the Needham-only northern platform track to being the northern platform track with no mandatory merges, serving all Needham trains plus the NEC.

That'd mean going from two complete express tracks to one compromised express track (in the sense of have fun dealing with the mandatory Track 4->Track 2 merge) or, if you wanted to now, one complete express track and one optional platform track that doesn't have to merge with anything else. Track 1 would gain what few Needhams would be kicked off it, but make that platform less attractive because stopping on it gums up yet another mainline track. (Yes, technically that is also true now...but there are two express tracks that don't merge with each other.) Quite a few years ago the interlocking where The Main line and the New Haven to Springfield service merge was re configured to give mainline trains priority and higher speeds through it . It worked perfectly and has not constrained an increase in service between New Haven ,Hartford ,and Springfield . Years ago Both Forest Hills and Canton Junction were configured

I utterly fail to understand how this wouldn't make the crossover games actively worse. If so, it'd screw over Needham and the NEC! (And here I thought we'd had the last of the insane troll logic when Pollack left.)

EDIT: Just so it's clear, my assumption throughout has been that the NEC tracks are bidirectional. Can someone who knows confirm or refute that for me please?

It adds a track between Forest Hills and Readville where the faster Amtrak trains can overtake slower commuter trains. The idea of a single branch line entering the main line works well at Canton Junction. It does not appreciably constrain the Needham Branch. Amtrak's top speed in this territory is 120, and possibly higher when the new Acela 2 service is implemented . The top speed for commuter trains is 80 and their acceleration is horrid. Yes tracks are signaled for Both directions

 

[BostonBoy]

One, I am not a troll. Two. Adding a track adds capacity. the track 4 that would be "forced " to merge at Forest Hills would have enabled that Acela to pass the Stoughton or Providence Local it was forced to follow into Boston, It happened to me more times than I can count. And having 4 tracks would enable a new station between Hyde Park and Forest Hills . Adding the platform on Tk 2 at Ruggles eliminated eastbound trains from having to approach Forest at limited speed ,45 MPH, to crossover and make stops at Forest Hills and Ruggles. But there are still times when an Amtrak train authorized to go 120 will follow a local all the way into Boston. There was a time when both Forest Hills and Canton Junction were configured much like the original drawings that ,I believe Mr F Line posted ( in red) I think that would require a diamond or a slip switch configuration. Lots of Maintenance. The more opportunities a slower train has to duck in to make way for a faster train,the better.

 

[BostonBoy]

The new Acelas are rated for 165 MPH maximum in service, a gain of 15 MPH over the top service speed of the A1s. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the A1s have ever run at 150 inside of Route 128 (at least in service). I'd imagine that has more to do with the level of congestion and having to deal with the slowpoke Commuter Rails (there's nothing quite like finishing a ride on a high speed train by losing fifteen minutes to a CR train making all stops) than anything to do with the track conditions or geometry, so I don't know that there's going to be a ton of vehicle-induced speed gains to be had there. (NEC work helping to move the CR trains out of the way, on the other hand...)

The top operating speed will be 160. The FRA mandated that Acela I's would could not exceed 130 in any curve, even if it was designed to a higher speed. I'm told that restriction will be 150MPH on the new trains. That leads to the possibility of the maximum authorized speed of the Acela 2 could be raised to 150 between Mansfield and Hyde Park. Keeping the top speed lower may well be because of the huge difference in speeds between the Commuter Rail and Amtrak, and congestion, which is why I believe 4 tracks from Forest Hills,west would be an improvement and enable an expansion of service. BTW, in Sharon, the electrification project was constructed to allow a third track between Mansfield and just east of Sharon Station , on the inbound side. That should be built as well.

 

[BostonBoy]

And you are right about crossover moves contributing to congestion. Even with high speed crossovers on the NE Corridor, trains have to slow down to 80. The only hitch with high speed crossovers, the ones Amtrak built, needed wider track centers. Using that design in any re-configuration at Forest Hills and Plains would be problematic, to say the least. I have seen other high speed crossovers where track centers remained the same , but they were longer in length; another problem at Forest Hills. Once again, adding the track I propose sorts that out farther west.

 

[BostonBoy]

I do not understand the agitation over The Needham line being somehow constrained . All the other branches that I can think of: Stoughton, Danbury, and New Canaan, merge to the main lines via single track .

 

[DominusNovus]

A question rather than a pitch: what could be done to improve transit on Cape Cod - with an emphasis on making tourists less of a traffic nightmare?

 

[jklo]

A question rather than a pitch: what could be done to improve transit on Cape Cod - with an emphasis on making tourists less of a traffic nightmare?

There is a local bus system on the Cape but I always got the impression that it is only being used by essential workers and maybe the occasional very very old person unable to drive anymore going to the grocery store. Beefing up the bus system to where it could be used by tourists doesn't seem very realistic especially when the tourist season is like 2-3 months tops.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I do not understand the agitation over The Needham line being somehow constrained . All the other branches that I can think of: Stoughton, Danbury, and New Canaan, merge to the main lines via single track .

Just going to reply to as much as possible in one post here.

The original diagram F-Line posted already included a fourth NEC running track west of Forest Hills, that's the red section, numbered Track 3 in my diagram. I don't think anyone here is disputing the benefits of a fourth NEC track west of FH; that's what the future plans are from the actual powers that be.

That diagram contemplates leaving the current three run-through tracks effectively unchanged, while adding crossovers at FOREST to allow the northern platform track (Track 3 in my diagram) to access 1.) the Needham Line (no change), 2.) the new fourth NEC track (addition), and 3.) the third NEC track (no current access, right now it can only access the Needham branch) while also permitting the Needham Line's trains to continue to use either platform track at Forest Hills.

From what I can tell of your configuration, the new NEC track (Track 3) would run through the north platform berth at Forest Hills, which would now (because of your changes at FOREST) be the Needham Line's only platform at FH. It's unclear to me whether anything on Track 3 coming off the NEC would be able to get off that track to Track 1 in any configuration, but unlike in F-Line's diagram it would be inherently impossible for the Needham trains to get out of the way of anything on Track 3.

As far as I can tell, apart from a bizarre forced merge of Track 4 and Track 2 that I continue not to understand, the only thing your configuration actually changes is eliminating the Needham Line's connection to Track 1, forcing it to exclusively use Track 3, which also (one of?) the fourth NEC running track. Meaning that you gain nothing but the paucity of Needhams that use the southern platform berth anyway in exchange for them gumming up Track 3 and making that branch's flexibility that much worse, and you get a free extra dispatching headache whenever you need to get something off of Track 3 because it's blocked by a Needham train that cannot get out of the way. And the problem has never been that it screws current Needham service so much as it forestalls (even if Needham still can access both platform berths at FH) the kind of service levels that Regional Rail would bring to the rest of the system.

I continue to not understand how what you're proposing is beneficial. As far as I can tell it's actively making the flexibility of FOREST and PLAINS, the station, and both the Needham Line and the four-track NEC worse. I'm almost wondering if there's a dramatic mis-connection and you're actually proposing increasing the number of tracks running through Forest Hills station itself to five; it still wouldn't explain the bizarre insistence that Needham must be restricted to a single-track merge as though that's an improvement, but it might explain why I'm having so much trouble visualizing what you're talking about with the interlockings. Of course, if that was the case, we'd be in crazy transit pitches territory, and that's a different thread.

 

[Brattle Loop]

Or we could OLX the Needham Line?

Well, yes, that would quite effectively deal with the problem. But at this point I'm thinking a fourth NEC track having to merge somewhere around FOREST is more likely to happen anytime soon than OLX.